Appeal No. 97-2783
Application 08/388,089
present case, neither the Morscher reference nor the examiner
provides an adequate factual basis to establish that the natural
result flowing from following the teachings of that patent would
be an acetabular cup prosthesis like that claimed by appellants.
Accordingly, since all the limitations of appellants' claims 1, 4
through 11, 13 and 15 are not found in Morscher, either expressly
or under principles of inherency, it follows that the examiner's
rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) relying on
Morscher will not be sustained.
Turning next to the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4
through 11, 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Frey '355, we must agree with the examiner that
Frey '355 discloses and shows in Figure 3 an acetabular cup
prothesis comprising a polymeric cup (11) having a cavity (12)
for receiving a femoral head, and a porous backing (2, 6)
disposed about and attached to the polymeric cup. As is apparent
from drawing Figures 1 and 2, and from the description in the
patent, the porous backing of Frey '355 includes interstitial
pores which are (a) sized to receive a portion of the polymeric
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007